(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Fish and Wildlife Management Report July 1, 1959"

NO. 47 JULY, 1959 




ONTARIO 



FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

REPORT 



PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 



(THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION .ND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) 



Hon. J. W. Spooner F. A. MacDougall 

Minister Deputy Minister 



CONTENTS 
No. 47 July, 1959 



Pages 

Report On Comparison Of Fish and Wildlife 

Workload By Districts. 1-69 



- 1 - 

REPORT 

on 

COMPARISON OF FISH AND WILDLIFE WORKLOAD 

BY DISTRICTS 

F. A. Walden March 20th, 1959 

The Fish and Wildlife Division must manage the 
fish, game and fur resources of Ontario. Management 
must be based upon facts. The primary requirements are 
a comprehensive inventory of our fish and wildlife 
resources, sound knowledge of their biology and a measure 
of their degree of utilization. 

The workload of the twenty-two Forest Districts 
has been compared. The numbers of staff required to 
obtain the inventory, biological data and degree of 
utilization, and to carry on or initiate management is 
shown in the accompanying organization charts. 

Senior District staff should devote a large 
part of their time to planning the fish and wildlife 
programs. Lack of supervision is a major weak point in 
our present field organization. The daily supervision 
of conservation officers can be effected by organizing 
field sections of three or four officers under the 
direction/ 



- 2 - 



direction of a Grade III conservation officer,, 

This, in itself, need not mean an increase in 

establishment. 

However, appointment of fifty-six additional 

conservation officers and promotion of sixty existing 

personnel to junior and senior field supervisor positions 

is recommended, according to the attached schedule. 

Nineteen additional biologists are required. Such a 

fish and wildlife staff will permit accomplishment of a 

large back-log of work which cannot be done now due to 

lack of staff and supervision. 

It is recommended that the Forest Districts 

be grouped in classes A, B, C and D as shown below and 

on the attached charts which compares workloads. 

Class A Class B Class C Class D 

Sioux Lookout Lake Simcoe Parry Sound White River 
Lake Erie Lindsay Kemptville Chapleau 
Lake Huron Tweed Sudbury Gogama 

Cochrane Kenora 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Port Arthur 

North Bay 

Fort Frances 

Geraldton 

Pembroke 

Swastika 

Kapuskasing 

To achieve the intensity of management necessary 
to realize more fully the benefits of our fish 
and/ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/resourcemanjul1959onta 



- 3 - 

and wildlife resources, there must be provision for more 
intensive training and development of the conservation 
officer staff. The Ontario Forest Ranger School provides 
an excellent fundamental course; the details and practice 
must be developed in the field. The organization of field 
staffs which is recommended, will provide immediate 
supervision of conservation officers, Grades I and II, at 
all times, and will permit those in senior categories to 
use their knowledge and experience in planning and develop- 
ing the long term program. At least one biologist is 
required in each District immediately, and a second 
appointment should be made as soon as possible in certain 
Districts as shown in the table. To co-ordinate and 
plan management over the larger areas, senior biologists 
should be appointed in the northwestern, northern, south- 
eastern and southwestern portions of Ontario. The total 
hatchery expenditures now exceed 1400,000 annually. Three 
biologists specializing in hatchery problems should be 
appointed to insure efficient use of this large sum. 
The advantages of the proposed system are 
primarily increased efficiency and development of higher 
standards of performance on the part of all fish and 
wildlife/ 



- 4 - 

wildlife staff. Conservation officers are key men due 
to their direct relationship to the public most of the 
time. This emphasizes the need for the highest standards, 

Five years will be required to develop the 
proposed organization. During this period, much progress 
can be made toward the management objective. Revision 
will be required at the end of five years, with increases 
in establishments to meet the needs which arise in 
relation to the rapidly growing human population of 
Ontario. 

Details of the analysis and comparison by 
Forest Districts follow. 



-5- 



o 
o 



o 
o 



ON 

o 
o 



00- 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 

SIOUX 
LKT. 

L. ERIE 



I 



\r^u-:r«»*,; 



- ■■-r^_^r*V. L 






L_ 









L. HURON 



.-v7 



rsi-:f':.-Kr'?i?-K':£ 



\mwx<-::-m 



: - ' ".- *- * • J*. . , IV 



1 







* ■ • » " * * 



■:::•■'■:■ ■••'■'•' -^ 



m 



SIMCOE 



E£ 



£&:3£'£\ COCHRANE 



LINDSAY 



TWEED 



•/>; :•?• 



PARRY SOUND 



KEMPTVILLE 
SUDBURY 



KENORA 



0*K"-V-"V- ;V -"l^ SAULT STE. MARIE 



"•-.•-•-V;/#s: PORT ARTHUR 



NORTH BAY 
FORT FRANCES 



•->'-/: •:"."-" :R| GERALDTON 
PEMBROKE 

'V-. : :->"vA,*: B SWASTIKA 

KAPUSKASING 

SI WHITE RIVER 

CHAPLEAU 
GOGAMA 













J 



I 



> 

3 

H- 

H* 
03 

P 
c+ 
H« 
O 
3 



I 






i 



o So So 

>-i p 4 p ^ 

p p 

H TOM TO H» 

O (DO CD O 

P 3 P 3 P 

CL CD O- CD (X 

►3 J3 

O c+ O ctO 

Hj Hj Mj 



O 
P 

3 

CD 



CD CO 

CD 
►J 
H- 
CD 
CO 




^JO 

cn ?r 

rr 

CD H 

*-i o 

H« p 
CD P- 
CD 
O 

P 



o 
o 



3 
p 

TO 3 

CD 3 

3 CD 

CD *-i 

3 o 

ct H- 

p 



a ^ 

M M 

co co 

M > 
O 3 
»-3 (3) 
CO 



tr 1 
a 
tr 1 

H 

o 

o 

> 
a 

o 

CO 
-3 



- 6 - 



Conservation Officer Establishments by Grades 









Present 








Req 


uired 




District 


2 


IV 


III 
3 


II & I 
5 


Total 
10 


1 


IV 
3 


III 
3 


II & I 
8 


Total 


A. Sioux Lkto 


15 


Lake Erie 


1 


- 


1 


15 


17 


1 


2 


5 


12 


20 


Lake Huron 


1 


- 


2 


14 


17 


1 


2 


5 


12 


20 


B. Lake Simcoe 


_ 


1 


1 


12 


14 


1 


2 


3 


10 


16 


Lindsay- 


1 


- 


3 


9 


13 


1 


2 


3 


10 


16 


Tweed 


1 


- 


1 


12 


14 


1 


2 


3 


10 


16 


Cochrane 


1 


1 


1 


5 


8 


1 


2 


2 


6 


11 


C. Parry Sound 


— 


1 


2 


8 


11 


1 


1 


3 


9 


14 


Kemptville 


1 


- 


1 


10 


12- 


1 


1 


3 


9 


14 


Sudbury 


- 


1 


1 


11 


13 


1 


1 


3 


9 


14 


Kenora 


1 


- 


- 


5 


6 


1 


1 


3 


7 


12 


Sault Ste. 






















Marie 


1 


1 


- 


8 


10 


1 


1 


3 


7 


12 


Port Arthur 


1 


- 


1 


5 


7 


1 


1 


3 


7 


12 


North Bay 


1 


- 


1 


8 


10 


1 


1 


3 


7 


12 


Ft. Frances 


1 


- 


1 


7 


9 


1 


— 


3 


6 


10 


Geraldton 


1 


- 


1 


6 


8 


1 


- 


3 


6 


10 


Pembroke 


1 


- 


1 


5 


7 


1 


- 


3 


5 


9 


Swastika 


1 


- 


1 


4 


6 


1 


- 


3 


5 


9 


Kapuskasing 


1 


- 


1 


4 


6 


1 


- 


3 


5 


9 


D. White River 


_ 


_ 


1 


4 


5 


_ 


1 


2 


4 


7 


Chapleau 


1 


- 


1 


5 


7 


- 


1 


2 


4 


7 


Gogama 


18 


1 
6 


1 
26 


4 


6 


19 


1 
25 


2 

66 


4 


7 


TOTALS 


166 


216 


162 


272 



- 7 - 



Field Biologist Establishments By Grades 







Pre 


sent 




R 


ecommend 


ed 


District 


III 


II 


32 


Total 


III 


II 


Iff 


Total 


Ao Sioux Lookout 


_ 




1 


1 


1 


1 




2 


Lake Erie 


1 


1 


- 


2 


1 


1 


— 


2 


Lake Huron 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


B. Lake Simcoe 


_ 


_ 


_ 


•a 


1 


1 


_ 


2 


Lindsay 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Tweed 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Cochrane 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


C o Parry Sound 


1 


_ 


_ 


1 


1 


1 


_ 


2 


Keraptville 


- 


1 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Sudbury 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Kenora 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Sault Ste. Marie 


— 


1 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Port Arthur 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


North Bay 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


2 


Fort Frances 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


3€M 


- 


1 


Geraldton 


- 


- 


1 


1 


1 


- 


- 


1 


Pembroke 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


- 


1 


Swastika 


1 


- 


- 


1 


1 


- 


- 


1 


Kapuskasing 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


1 


D. White River 


1 


_ 


_ 


1 


_ 


1 


_ 


1 


Chapleau 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


1 


- 


1 


Gogama 


10 


3 


4 


"■ 


22 


1 

14 


— 


1 


TOTAL DISTRICT BIOLOGISTS 


17 


36 



K Grade I is a Training Category 

km Quetico Park Biologist serves part-time with Fish and Wildlife 
Division 

A rea Biologists g- 

Supervising Northwestern Ontario - 1 

Supervising Northern Ontario - 1 

Supervising Southeastern Ontario - 1 

Supervising Southwestern Ontario - 1 

Area Biologists - 4 

F ish Hatchery Biologists s - 

Port Arthur - 1 

Sault Ste. Marie - 1 

Swastika - 1 

Hatchery Biologists 3 



a 














o 














•H 














co 














•H 














> 














•H 














P 














CD 












^. 


<H 










> 


H 


•H 












M 


<H 


CQ 








H 


M 


T3 










CD 




H 


P 








O 


-P 


•H 








^ 


•H 


CO 


;s 


o 






O <h 


•H 






C 1 




cq ch 


bfl 


T3 


•H 


O 




•HO 


O 


E 




H 




> 




Ur-\ 


dJ 


h 


3 1 


^ 


U 


C 


O O 






ffi 


CD 


CD 


O 


CO -H 


£ 


p 




■P 


Ph-H 


•H PQ 


CO 




cd 


CO 


3 p 


> 


•H 


CO 


^ 1 


CD 


CO 


cO 


J-h ^ 


FH 




CO 


Sh 




> 


CD O 




•H 


^ 


O 


CD 


H 


Ph 


Ch 






Exh 


ch 


CD 


3> 


o 


Q 


TJ 




— »H 


CO 


CO 






C 


-P 


rH 


C 


U 


c 




co 


1 o 


T3 


o 


-p CD 


o 






•H 


rlO 


C o 


•H 


£ 


CD 


1 ^. 


•H 




cd «H 


-P 


< 


•H 


-P 


!3 


u 


+3 <h 


CC 




(h 


CO 




o 


CO Ch 


N 




W 


1 -H 


13 




•HO 


•H 






Q 


§ 


H 


CO 


C 




CD 




M 


CO C 


cd 


CQ 


A! 






M 


< o 


hi 




05 




,C 




•H 


U 


to 


J 




CO 


P 


-P 


o 








•H 


CO 


CO 




cO 






CXH 


•H 


> 


T3 










bD 


H 


H 


H 








O 


CD 


CD 










H 


CQ 


•H 


O 








O 


c 


r-xn 










•H 


o 
o 


73 










— 


' — 


OJ 














CO 














O 














°i 














o 














^H 














tx, 

















P 






o 






(8 


H 




CO H 


-o 


CM 


s 


O 




Oj 


•H 


U 




+3 


CD 


+3 


CO 


o 


CH 


■H 


CD 


CD C+h 


SPh <+h 


CD 




o 


CJ 


U 




Sh 


•H 


• 


O iH 


CO 


Ch ,o 


C 


fl 


3 


O 



W Oh O 



U 

CD 
O 
C -H 
O ch 
•H ch 
-PO 
u 

CD £ 

CO o 

•H 

■CD +3 > 

Ch CO IH 

•H > 

H Ch 

X! CD 

r-\ CO 

•H C 

•3 O 

O 



-P -P 
C CO 
CO -H 
P 50 
.CO O 
•H H 
CO O 
CO -H 
< PQ 



c 


u 


o 


CD 


•H 


o 


+3 


•H 


O 


«M 


CD «H 


CO O 


CO 


G 


CD 





— H 


•H 


<H +> 


CD 


cd 


CO 


£ 


•H 


CD 


Fn 


CO 




d 




o 




o 



-o 



p 



c 


O IH 


•H M 


P M 


CO 


> Ch 


Ph CD 


CD O 


CO -H 


CCh 


O ^ 


oo 



d 


O IH 


•HM 


P IH 


CO 


> u 


U CD 


CD O 


CO -H 


C<H 


O Cm 


O O 



-cn 



fl 




OHH 


G 


•HIH 


O 


PM 


•H M 


CO 


PM 


> Ih 


CO 


f , fp 


> Ch 


CD O 


U CD 


CO -H 


CD O 


C <H 


CO -H 


O Ch 


CCh 


O O 


O Ch 




OO 



-o" 

CD 

•H 



H 
M 
H 

Ch 
CD 
O 
•H 

Ch 
ch 
O 



M 

U 
CD 
o 

•H 



CO Ch 
CCh 
O O 
O 



M 

U 
CD 

o 

•H 



CO Ch 
C ch 
OO 
O 



Ph co 



i 



I 

ON 



c 

o 

•H 
CO 

•H 
> 

•H 

P 

CD 

<+h 
•H 
rH 
73 
H 
•H 
25 

73 

C 

cd 

£3 

CO 
•H 

Cm 
O 

c 

o 

■H 
P 

cd 

•H 

cs 

cd 

bi 

H 
O 

73 
rH 
CD 
•H 

73 
CD 
CO 
O 

a 
o 
u 

Oh 



cj 



CO 



Q 



CO 



CO 



cd 

rH 



O 







Ph 






CD 






O 






•H 


p 1 




mCh 


3 




O Ch 


o 




CO O 


^1 




•H 


O 1 




> PS 


O 1 


Ph 


Ph o 


1-3 


CD 


CD -H 




-P 


p,p 


X 


CO 


3 cd 


3 


CD 


CO > 


o 


M 


u 


•H 


o 


CD CD 


CO 


1 fe 


ch co 
•H PS 


| 


p 


rH O 




I o 


73 O 


CD 


1 -H 


H 


CO 


1 Ph 


•H Ph 


cd 


P 


& o 


o 


1 CO 






1 «H 


73 H 


rH 


Q 


CH 


C^S 




Cd M 


•H 






O 




A P 


CD 




CO CO 


Ph 




•H -H 


CO 




F 

Biolog 





1h 





















o 








p 


•H 








3 


ch 








Ch O 


Ch 








O^CO 








CO o o 










•H O -H 


£> 




- PQ 




> hP CO 


O rH 








Ph -H 


•H 








d) X >-P 








a 3 -h 


cd 








2 OQ 


> 








CO -H 


Ph 








CO 


CD 










CO 










a 










o 






M 




o 






rH 
rH 

Ph 
CD 
O 
•H 
Ch 
Ch 
O 


P P-— 








C 


PS CO M 








o 


Cfl-HH 








•H 


P bfl 








P 


CO O CD 






*-~< 


cd 


•HH^I 








> 


to o cd 






G 


u 


CO -H Ph 






o 


CD 


<mo 




73 


•H 


CO 


— - 




rH 


P 


c 






CD 


O 


o 






•H 


CD 


O 






C=h CO 





Ph 


Ch 


Ph 


CD 


CD 


CD 


cd o 


O 


O 


•H -H 


•H 


•H 


o Ch 


Ch 


Ch 


Ph -H Ch 


Ch 


Ch 


O c_ a O 


O 


O 


CO p O 






•H cd -H C 


PS 


PS 


> D-, CO O > 


O M 


o 


Ph -h -h h 


•H M 


•H 


CD rH > P 


P M 


P 


a, cd -h ro 


cd 


cd 


3 H« > 


> 


> 


CO P H 


H 


Ph 


a cd 


CD 


CD 


CD CO 


CO 


CO 


o PS 


PS 


PS 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 



u 


Ph 


u 


CD 


CD 


CD 


O 


O 


o 


cd -H 


•H 


•H 


•H ^ 


ch 


Ch 


Ch O Ch 


Ch 


ch 


O -H PS O 


O 


O 


CO Ph O 






■H 4^> -r-i PS 


PS 


PS 


> cd co O > 


O rH 


o 


Ph (X, -H -H H 


•H rH 


•H 


CD > p 


P rH 


p 


PhP -H Cd 


Cd 


cd 


3 CO Q > 


> 


> 


CO CD Ph 


Ph 


Ch 


^ CD 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


PS 


PS 


PS 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 



M 



PS 
O h-\ 

•H (H 
P 

Cd Ph 
> 
Ph O 
CD -H 
CO Ch 
Ch 
OO 

o 



PS 

o 

•H 

P 

cd 
> 

Ph 

CD 



H 



co ch 
PS ch 
OO 
o 



PS 

o 

•H 

P 

> 

Ph 
CD 



H 
rH 

Ph 
CD 
O 
•H 



CO Ch 
PSCh 
OO 

o 



o 

•H 
CO 

•H 
> 
•H 
Q 

CD 
<H 
•H 
rH 
T3 



ctf 

,c 

CO 
•H 

o 
o 

•H 

-p 

o3 

N 
•H 
C 
03 
bi 

O 

rH 

CD 
•H 

ptH 

X) 
CD 
CO 

o 

o 

u 

Oh 





CD 




> 


H 




C 






H 




05 1 




h 


H 


CO 


Jh 1 




CD 






£ 1 




O 


P 


-p 


O 1 




•H 


CO 




O 1 




<h Ch 


•H 


o 


O 




O ^H 
CO O 


bfl 

O 


•H 


n 




•H 


' H 




c 




> C 


U o 


k 


03 


M 


U O 


O -H 






CD 


CD -H 


co pa 


P 


T3 


-P 


ap 


•H 




CD 


CO 


3 CO 


> H 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CO > 


^ o 




5 


H 


Sh 


CD 


•H 


Eh 


o 


CD CD 


Ph> 




»» 


fo 


c-h en 
•H C 


2 


Q 


CO U 




>> 


p 


H O 


o 




cO 


o 


X) O 


P o 




CO 


•H 


H 


C -H 


J£ 


73 


1 h 


•H m 


03 Ch 


m 


C 


P 


Ss o 


P Ch 




•H 


1 CO 




CO O 




h3 


•H 


-a m 


•H 






Q 


CM 


CO c 




o\ 




CO H 


CO O 


CO 


CD 






< -H 




O 




.C P 


P 


CO 


O 




CO CO 


03 




e 




•H -H 


> 


CT3 


•H 




Cx, bfl 


Jh 




CO 




O 


CD 


H 






H 


CO 




0) 




O 


g 


O 


,^ 




■H 


O 




03 




PQ 


O 




»-T 




* — 


— ' 





H 




Sh 


G 


CD 


o 


o 


•H 


•H 


P Ch 


O Cm 


CD O 


CO 






c 


CD 





Ch 


•H 


•H 


p 


rH 


cd 


T3 


> 


H 


Sh 


•H 


CD 



to 

c 
o 
o 



p 

CO 
•H 

bO 
O 

O H 
•H M 
CQ 

CD 
P TJ 

c cd 

Cti H 

PO 
C0-— 
•H 
CO 
CO 
< 



> 
H 

O h 
•H CD 
P O 

O -H 

CD <h 

00 <H 

o 

CO 



CD P 



CO 
•H 



fc CD 
CO 

C 

o 
o 



- o 



Q 



T3 

CD 
•H 



o 

P 
O 

CD 
CO 



£ 


O M 


•H M 


PM 


03 


> *-. 


J-. CD 


CD O 


CO tH 


a ^h 


O ch 


OO 



fl 


C 


O H 


OhH 


•H M 


•HM 


P M 


P 


03 


03 H 


> Jh 


" J> CD 


$h CD 


U O 


CD O 


CD -H 


CO -H 


CO Ch 


C cm 


Sh 


O ch 


O O 


O O 


o 



- m 



O M 


•H H 


P M 


Cd 


> U 


U CD 


CD O 


CO -H 


CCh 


O ch 


OO 



" -X 



a 

O M 
•H H 

P HH 
03 



U 

0) 

o 

■H 

ch 



O ch 
OO 



O H 
•H M 
P 

Cd Sh 
> CD 
U O 
CD .H 

co ch 
C ch 
O O 
O 



o 

•H 

P 
03 
> 

H 

CD 



H 



CO ch 
£Ch 
OO 
O 



g 
o 

•H 
CO 

•H 
> 

•H 

O 



o 

•H 
■P 
cd 
N 
•H 
C 

a 

g 
o 



T3 
<D 
CO 

o 
p 
o 
G 

Ph 





CD 








•H 








G 








CO 








S 








• G 








0) O 








-P -P 








co t3 




.. — . 




H 




> 




-p cd 








rH G 




G 


CO 


£ CD 




CD 




do yi 




O 


-p 


CO G 




•H 




<h.h 




G ^ 


o 


* CO CO 




O <4-l 




a cd cd 




CO O 


•H 


Go,* 




•H 




o g co 




> C 


G 


G cd 3 


g 


G O 




cd g a 


CD 


CD -H 


-P 


w fc cd 


■P 


Ch-P 




fed 


CO 


3 cd 


CO 


*-P 


CD 


CO > 




t>» Js » 


G 


U 


•H 


G o cd 


1 o 


CD CD 




3&h J* 


&H 


c^ m 


Q 


;Q -H 




•H G 




T3 «*-P 


-p 


rH O 




3 >■, CO 


o 


73 O 




co cd cd 


1 «H 


r-\ 


s 


PQ £ 


G 


•H G 


o 


* co i 


■P 


is o 


s 


a> x; 


CO 






i— i -p •» 


•H 


T3 M 




rH 5-1 CD 


Q 


GM 




•HO* 




cd M 


CO 


> S O 








■P G 




,g +j 


CO 


Oh *,0 




CO CO 




S U B 




•H -H 


cd 


CD £ CD 




&-, bO 




w £ a, 




O 


rH 


■p 




rH 




* g 




O 


O 


T5 «5j 




•H 




G 




PQ 




3 -P 




— 




O G 








CO O 








Ph 








>^ 








G 








G 








cd 








Ph 







rH 



rH 



•P 
CO 
•H 

hO 
O 

rH 
G O 

O -H 
CO PQ 
H 
> G 

g o 

CD 

(X> 

3- 



CO G 

CD 

-P o 

G -H 

cd<H 
-P Cm 
CO O 
■H 

co G 

CO o 

< -H 

■P 

cd 
> 

G 

CD 
CO 

G 
O 
O 



-P 

CO 
•H 

fc»0 — -• 

O M 
rH rH 
O 

•h cd 

PQ TJ 

cd 

-P G 

GO 

cd — 
-p 

CO 
•H 
CO 
CO 



G 
O 

-p> 

OH 

CD 

CO G 
CD 

CD O 
Cm «H 
•H Cm 

rH'H 

T3 O 



r o 



-o 



-PQ 



G 




O M 


•H H 


■P rH 


cd 




> 


G 


G 


U) 


(U 


o 


10 


■H 




ch 


O Cm 


OO 



O rH 


•H IH 


-P H 


cd 


> G 


G CD 


CD O 


CO -H 


C Cm 


O Cm 


O O 



G 


O rH 


•H IH 


•P IH 


cd 


> G 


G CD 


CD O 


CO -H 


CCm 


O cm 


O O 



G 

O H 
•H (H 



H 






-P rH 


•H G 






cd 


Is o 


^ 


> G 


•H 




G CD 


G -P 




CD O 


o cd 




CO -H 


> 




GCm 


co G 


G 


O <H 


CD CD 


O 


oo 


•H CO 


X) -H 




G G 


rH -P 




CD O 


cd a 




.GO 


•H CD 




CO— ' 


P>H co 




•H 






ElH 











CD 




> 




cd 




.G 




■P 




O 




G 




rH 




rH 




•H 




£ 




bO 




G 




•H 




CO 


G 


cd 


O IH 


X 


•H M 


CO 


-P 


^J 


Cd G 


a 


> CD 


cd 


G o 


w 


CD -H 




CO Cm 


T3 


G cm 


G 


OO 


cd 


o 






cd 




J« 




•H 




-P 




CO 




cd 




5 




CO 




tk 


G 


CD 


O IH 


^J 


•H IH 


O 


-P 


G 


cd G 


Xi 


> CD 


S 


G O 


CD 


CD -H 


Ph • 


CO Cm 


-P 


G<H 


•^ CO 


oo 


G -H 


o 


O bO 




-P O 




■dH 




rH O 




cd -H 




G PQ 




CD 


G 


O -P 


O H 


G 


•H H 


<» cd 


-P 


CO -p 


cd G 


CD CO 


> CD 


O 'H 


G O 


G CO 


CD -H 


cd co 


CO Cm 


G -4 


G Cm 


fe 


OO 


G 


O 


■p cd 




G 




o 




fe 



FH 
O 



- 12 • 
Comparison by Forest Districts 

The Forest Districts have been compared on the 
basis of known workload or factors which are in some sense 
related to workload as shown on the attached comparison sheets. 
It is exceedingly difficult to provide criteria which accurately 
reflect conditions throughout the Province and take into account 
the special problems occurring in particular districts. Appro- 
priate allowances have been made as far a3 possible. 

The primary basis of workload evaluation ic related 
to people and the demand they make on the resource, A secondary 
feature is the land and water area involved. Thus, Sioux 
Lookout District, with its 135?000 square miles assumes first 
place in the workload scale that has been established, while the 
Lake Erie, Lake Huron and Maple Districts ere in second, 
third and fourth place, due to their very great human populations, 
It is obvious, however, that the workload in Sioux Lookout 
District is of a very different Izinc 1 to that in the latter 
districts. Thus, while the comparison of the Districts was 
made on an item by item basis, it ic better administration to 
think of the Districts as obey ?.re grouped in classes A, B, C 
and D. 



Class A 



Sioux Lookout 
Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 



Clas s B 

Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay 

Tweed 
Cochrane 



Class C 

Parry Sound 

Kemptville 

Sudbury 

Ken era 

Sault Steo Marie 

Port Arthur 

North Bay 

Fort Frances 

Geraldton 

Pembroke 

Swastika 

Kapuskasing 



lass D 



White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 



- 13 - 

The District workload is considered in three 
categories, namely, Administrative, Wildlife and Fisheries 
Functions. 

Administrative functions with explanations of the 
methods of evaluation are as follows? 

Areas This includes land and water areas, with 

Geraldton (30,000 square miles) as a base - 100 points, 

Cochrane and Sioux Lookout Districts were calculated 

upwards from the base and all other districts 

downwards. An adjustment, up to 10 points was 

allowed for bordering the Great Lakes or other 

large bodies of water. 

Human Populations A maximum of 200 points was 

awarded for a human population of 1,000,000 or more. 

All other districts were pro-rated downwards, 

though the minimum evaluation was 20 points. 

Indian Populations Thirty points were awarded for 

the maximum number of Indians., with an adjustment 

up or down of not more than 20 points for the 

known relationship and dependence of Indians on 

fish, game and fur resources. 

Road Development is intimately related to human 

population. Fifty points were allowed in this 

category. 



- 14 - 

Number of Staff: The existence of staff creates 
workload in supervision and other matters. 
Other items in the administrative category included 
law enforcement, public relations, number of 
hunter-safety instructors, licenced guides, and 
licence issuers. The comparisons were based upon 
data for one year only obtained from District and 
Departmental Reports or the supervisors concerned. 
Wildlife functions include comparison of District 
wildlife workloads based on the range, population density, 
degree of utilization and special problems within each 
district for game animals and birds. The workload in fur 
management has been demonstrated and compared on the basis of 
the numbers of trappers, and the fur production for one year. 
Consideration was given for the size of quotas in the case 
of beaver, fisher and marten. 

Regulated townships were considered to add sub- 
stantially to the workload where they occur, and Crown Game 
Preserves do in some but not all cases. 

The workload which may be attributed to game fish 
was evaluated as for wildlife species. In addition, inventory 
of waters, creel census, and assessment of hatchery fish 
plantings were considered to be of major importance. The 
hatchery workload was considered partly in the light of the 
number of hatcheries within a District, and partly on the fish 



- 



- 15 - 

planted. The values placed on the existence of a hatchery- 
were based on a comparative study of hatcheries, but the 
evaluation is very low compared to other function since 
there is usually adequate staff to carry out the routine 
hatchery operations. 

In the commercial fisheries, comparisons were made 
on the basis of the numbers of licences and numbers of units 
of fishing gear licenced, as well as on the pounds of fish 
landed in the year 1957. Consideration was given to the bait 
fish industry. 

It is not suggested that every possible workload 
item has been included. Such a detailed study would require 
more time than is available and would probably not produce 
results that were significantly different from those shown here 
which are based on the major workload items. It must be em- 
phasized this study dwells upon the potential workload which / \\1 
now exists in the fish and wildlife management job. Certain 
districts are attacking the job much more vigorously than 
others, but it is not possible in this analysis to point out 
those districts. 

The evaluations of workload, based upon data for 
one year have limitations particularly in commercial fisheries 
matters. However, an excessive amount of time would be re- 
quired to bring together five years data, and present average 
values. In most other cases, for example in hunter-safety, 
the work increases as the program expands and the latest data 
have been presented. 






: . : ! 



- 16 - 

Conditions vary constantly" thus a district with 
a small big game or fisheries workload might well have a very 
large one develop as a result of improved access. 

The fact that a game species is not utilized does 
not obviate the need of management, since, as in the case of 
deer in Lake Erie District where there is no open season, the 
problem is greater than in many important deer hunting 
districts. 

The comparison of district workloads, item by 
item, follows. 




\ 







- 17 - 




^ 


«^J^f1> ! 


Comparison of Ovei 


-all Workl 


oad 


By Forest Districts 




District 


Admini- 
strative 
Functions 

V657 


Wildlife 
Management 

7-318 


Game Fish 
Management 

fC 250 


Commercial 

Fish 
Management 

/ 116 


Total 


Lake Erie 


1,341 


Lake Huron 


1^657 


$> 250 




\ 332 


36 


1,275 


Lake Simcoe 


^556 


220 




243 


6 y 41 


1,060 


Lindsay- 
Tweed 


402 
332 


\ 264 


J 


3 322 

4 320 


36 


1,024 
991 


Kemptville 


(JJ90) 


(^J^£) 


\iP til- — -~^ 

\W^_2UJ 


(kJZ^ 


805 , 


Pembroke 


177 


\U44 




// 254 


9 


584 


Parry Sound 


279 


-■ 204 




®326 


31 


840 


North Bay- 


223 


\<\ 142 




"' 290 


22 


682 


Sudbury 


279 


\ol97 




g 287 


30 


793 


Sault Ste. Marie 


2 56 


lb' 157 




■T301 


24 


738 


White River 


12 5 


103 




145 


7 


380 


Chapleau 


130 


90 




146 


- 


366 


Gogama 


107 


90 




147 


1 


345 


Swastika 


142 


113 




221 


5 


@) ( 


Cochrane 


' 496 


3 269 




185 


8 


958 


Kapuskasing 


177 


x vl72 




116 


6 


471 


Geraldton 


244 


^165 




195 


21 


625 


Port Arthur 


236 


\T>169 




£ 295 


28 


728 


Fort Frances 


218 


\ 188 




236 


36 


678 


Kenora 


233 


a.198 




c \ 256 


55 


742 


Sioux Lookout 


\ 735 


V 415 




174 


■'■ 45 


1,369 



- 18 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Area 



District 


Area 

Square 

Miles 

7,300 


Points 
Awarded 
(100)" 

25 


Adj 

for 

or 

Lar 

of 


ustment 

Bordering 
Including 
ge Bodies 
Water (10) 

10 


Total 
Points 

Awarded 


Lake Erie 


35 


Lake Huron 


3,900 


30 




9 


39 


Lake Simcoe 


5,300 


18 




4 


22 


Lindsay 


5,500 


19 




4 


23 


Tweed 


7,700 


26 




4 


30 


Kemptville 


5,700 


19 




2 


w 


Pembroke 


5,300 


18 




1 


19 


Parry Sound 


6,500 


22 




5 


27 


North Bay 


5,300 


20 




1 


21 


Sudbury 


12,100 


40 




6 


46 


Sault Ste. Marie 


9,400 


32 




7 


39 


White River 


6,700 


23 




3 


26 


Chapleau 


6,700 


23 




- 


23 


Gogama 


6,400 


21 




- 


21 


Swastika 


5,400 


18 




- 


18 


Cochrane 


"68,182 


225 




10 


235 


Kapuskasing 


19,300 


65 




- 


65 


Geraldton 


30,000 


100 




7 


107 


Port Arthur 


13,900 


47 




6 


53 


Fort Frances 


7,200 


24 




2 


26 


Kenora 


12,400 


41 




3 


44 


Sioux Lookout 


"135,297 


450 




10 


460 


K Geraldton 


with 30,000 squa 


re miles 


is base 


- 100 




Cochrane 


and Sioux Lookout 


are calculated 


upwards from 


that base 



- 19 - 



Grading of Forest Districts By Human Population 



District 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Lake Siracoe 

Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 

Pembroke 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 

Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 

Swastika 

Cochrane 

Kapuskasing 

Geraldton 

Port Arthur 

Fort Frances 

Kenora 

Sioux Lookout 



Population 

1,100,000 

1,000,000 

1,900,000 

225,000 

265,000 

53 5,000 

40,000 

56,000 

67,000 

150,000 

92,000 

5,000 

6,000 

3,000 

50,000 

66,000 

20,000 

10,000 

120,000 

2 5,000 

33,000 

15,000 



Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 200) 

200 

200 

200 

45 

54 
107 

d 

12 
14 
30 
19 

1 

2 

1 

10 
13 

8 

2 
24 
5 
7 
3 



Adjustment 

for 

Tourists 



55 
36 
23 
32 
55 
31 
15 
26 

4 
8 

4 
12 
22 

7 

16 
45 
5^ 
37 



Total Points 
(Adjusted to 
Minimum of 20) * 

200 




20* 

20* 

40 

50 

65 

40 



K There is a certain minimum work load regardless of size of 
population. This is represented by the minimum value of 20 



- 20 - 

Grading of Forest Districts By Indian Population 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Sirncoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay- 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste, Marie 
White River 
Chapleau 
Gogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 
Geraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 
Kenora 
Sioux Lookout 



Number of 
Indians in 
District 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 30) 


Adju 

For 

Depe 

Fish 

Life 

+ or 


stment 

Known 

ndence on 
and Wild- 
Resources 
- 20 


Total 
Points 

Awarded 


3,500 


25 




-2 5 


10 


7,500 


30 




-20 


10 


92 5 


10 






10 


750 


10 




* 5 


15 


1,600 


15 




* 5 


20 


625 


10 






w 


300 


10 




+ 5 


15 


1,000 


15 




- 5 


20 


500 


10 




+10 


20 


3,500 


25 




flO 


35 


1,500 


15 




4-10 


35 


225 


10 




+ 25 


25 


650 


10 




+25 


25 


250 


10 




+ 25 


25 


150 


10 




fl5 


25 


2,000 


20 




f20 


30 


600 


10 




4-20 


30 


600 


10 




•1-20 


30 


1,500 


15 




fl5 


30 


1,100 


25 




+•15 


30 


2,500 


20 




+15 


35 


4,500 


30 




+ 20 


50 



Populations based on Census of Indians, 1951* 



- 21 - 

Forest Districts By Road Development 



District 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Lake Siracoe 

Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 

Pembroke 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 

Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 

Swastika 

Cochrane 

Kapuskasing 

Geraldton 

Port Arthur 

Fort Frances 

Kenora 

Sioux Lookout 



- 22 - 

Forest Districts By Number of Fish and Wildlife Staff 

Number of Staff Members 



District 


Biologists 
2 


Conservation Officers 
16 


Points Awarded 
(Max. 100) 


Lake Erie 


90 


Lake Huron 


1 


16 


$5 


Lake Simcoe 


- 


14 


70 


Lindsay- 


1 


13 


70 


Tweed 


1 


12 


/ 65 


Kemptville 


1 


12 


65 


Pembroke 


1 


7 


40 


Parry Sound 


1 


12 


65 


North Bay 


1 


10 


55 


Sudbury 


- 


12 


60 


Sault Ste. Marie 


1 


10 


55 


White River 


1 


4 


25 


Chapleau 


- 


6 


30 


Gogama 


- 


3 


15 


Swastika 


1 


5 


30 


Cochrane 


- 


8 


45 


Kapuskasing 


- 


5 


25 


Geraldton 


- 


8 


40 


Port Arthur 


1 


6 


35 


Fort Frances 


2 


8 


50 


Kenora 


- 


5 


25 


Sioux Lookout 


1 


a 


45 



- 23 - 



Forest District By Law Enforcement Effort 1957-58 



District 


Number 
of 

Convictions 
1957-58 

480 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 150) 

150 


Number 
of 

Seizures 
1957-58 

450 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 100) 


Lake Erie 


83 


Lake Huron 


450 


139 


550 


100 


Lake Simcoe 


344 


108 


345 


63 


Lindsay- 


284 


87 


286 


53 


Tweed 


148 


46 


168 


/32^ 


Kemptville 


191 


62 


248 


Pembroke 


63 


21 


57 


11 


Parry Sound 


94 


31 


103 


18 


North Bay 


118 


36 


103 


18 


Sudbury 


116 


36 


121 


23 


Sault Ste. Marie 


132 


41 


132 


24 


White River 


30 


10 


30 


7 


Chapleau 


53 


15 


45 


8 


Gogama 


36 


12 


33 


7 


Swastika 


47 


15 


49 


9 


Cochrane 


35 


11 


40 


8 


Kapuskasing 


49 


14 


52 


10 


Geraldton 


18 


5 


18 


4 


Port Arthur 


113 


36 


124 


23 


Fort Frances 


71 


23 


73 


13 


Kenora 


77 


26 


76 


14 


Sioux Lookout 


54 


15 


53 


10 



- 24 - 



Forest Districts By Public Relations Efforts 1956-57 



District 


Number 
of 

Meetings 
Reported 

420 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 

9 


Total 
Atten- 
dance 

24,989 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 
10) 

10 


Hunter Po 
Safety Aw 
Instruc- (M 
tors 

282 


ints 
r arded 
ax. 
10) 


Lake Erie 


7 


Lake Huron 


399 


9 


24, 282 


10 


238 


6 


Lake Simcoe 


543 


10 


49,429 


10 


385 


10 


Lindsay 


102 


2 


6,847 


3 


75 


2 


Tweed 


102 


2 


6,909 


3 


93 


3) 


Kemptville 


gr\ 


2 


3,931 


2 


122 


y 


Pembroke 
Parry Sound 


( 120 ) 

214 


2 

4 


5,998 
10,365 


3 

4 


36 
44 


1 
1 


North Bay 


151 


3 


9,902 


4 


32 


1 


Sudbury 


108 


2 


6,021 


3 


76 


2 


Sault Ste. Marie 


104 


2 


6,186 


3 


37 


1 


White River 


42 


1 


3,791 


2 


7 


1 


Chapleau 


35 


1 


2,936 


1 


20 


1 


Gogama 


9 


1 


467 


1 


10 


1 


Swastika 


65 


2 


17,017 


7 


46 


1 


Cochrane 


118 


2 


12,876 


5 


43 


1 


Kapuskasing 


35 


1 


3,890 


2 


15 


1 


Geraldton 


55 


1 


3,455 


2 


25 


1 


Port Arthur 


132 


3 


5,364 


3 


S3 


2 


Fort Frances 


74 


2 


12,978 


5 


35 


1 


Kenora 


40 


1 


2,274 


1 


29 


1 


Sioux Lookout 


15 


1 


939 


1 


8 


1 



- 25 - 

Forest Districts By Number of Licenced Guides (1958) 
District 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Lake Simcoe 

Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 

Pembroke 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 

Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 

Swastika 

Cochrane 

Kapuskasing 

Geraldton 

Port Arthur 

Fort Frances 

Kenora 

Sioux Lookout 



Number of Guides 


Points 


Awarded (Max* 


10) 


195 




3 




61 




2 




137 




3 




274 




4 




339 
300 




5 

5 




108 




3 




668 




8 




378 




5 




528 




7 




190 




3 




60 




2 




151 




3 




98 




2 




38 




2 




94 




2 




140 




3 




148 




3 




107 




3 




376 




5 




1,500 




10 




391 




5 





- 26 - 



Forest Districts By Number of Licence Issuers (1957) 



District 


Number of 
Licence Issuers 

325 


Points Awarded (Max. 10) 


Lake Erie 


10 


Lake Huron 




225 


7 


Lake Siracoe 




315 


10 


Lindsay- 




238 


8 


Tweed 




182 


f) 


Keraptville 




152 


w 


Pembroke 




51 


2 


Parry Sound 




175 


6 


North Bay 




140 


5 


Sudbury 




148 


5 


Sault Ste. Marie 




93 


3 


White River 




12 


1 


Chapleau 




12 


1 


Gogama 




3 


- 


Swastika 




20 


1 


Cochrane 




21 


1 


Kapuskasing 




11 


1 


Geraldton 




15 


1 


Port Arthur 




83 


3 


Fort Frances 




80 


3 


Kenora 




170 


6 


Sioux Lookout 




41 


2 



- 27 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Big Game 

Deer > 

Abundance Degree of Special Total 



District 


and Range (10) Utilization (10) Probl 
7 - 5 


ems (5l 

i 


1 


Points 


Lake Erie 


12 


Lake Huron 


8 


3 


4 




I 

T 6 ' 


15 


Lake Simcoe 


6 


1 


4 


/ 


11 


Lindsay 


7 


7 


*3 




17 


Tweed 


3 


9 


1 




IS 


Kemptville 


6 


4 


2 V 




U* 


Pembroke 


7 


9 


1 






17 


Parry Sound 


9 


10 


3 






22 


North Bay 


7 


7 


3 






17 


Sudbury 


$ 


9 


3 






20 


Sault Ste. Marie 


7 


7 


3 






17 


White River 


- 


- 


- 






- 


Chapleau 


- 


- 


- 






- 


Gogama 


- 


- 


- 






- 


Swastika 


2 


2 


1 






5 


Cochrane 


- 


- 


- 






- 


Kapuskasing 


- 


- 


- 






- 


Geraldton 


1 


1 


- 






2 


Port Arthur 


2 


2 


1 






5 


Fort Frances 


7 


5 


3 






15 


Kenora 


3 


6 


2 






16 


Sioux Lookout 


5 


4 


1 






10 



- 28 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Big Game 

Moose 



Abundance Degree of 
District and Range (10) Utilization (10) 



Lindsay 1 7 

Tweed 1 7 

Pembroke 2 7 

Parry Sound 3 7 

North Bay 5 4 

Sudbury 7 5 

Sault Ste. Marie 7 7 

White River 6 5 

Chapleau 6 5 

Gogama 6 5 

Swastika 5 6 

Cochrane 9 7 

Kapuskasing 9 9 

Geraldton 9 10 

Port Arthur 9 7 

Fort Frances 5 1 

Kenora 9 7 

Sioux Lookout 10 10 



Special Total 
Problems (5) Points 


1 


9 


1 


9 


1 


10 


1 


11 


3 


12 


3 


15 


3 


17 


2 


13 


2 


13 


2 


13 


3 


14 


3 


19 


2 


20 


2 


21 


3 


19 


2 


a 


2 


is 


2 


22 



- 29 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Big Game 

Caribou 

Abundance Degree of Special Total 
District and Range (10) Utilization (10) Problems (5) Points 

White River 5 - 1 6 

Cochrane 9 9 6 24 

Kapuskasing 5 2 18 

Geraldton 5 2 18 

Sioux Lookout 10 10 5 2$ 



- 30 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Big Game 

Bear 



District 


Abundance 

and Range (10) 

1 


Degree of 
Utilization (5) 


Total 
Points 


Lake Huron 


1 


Lake Siracoe 




1 


- 


1 


Lindsay- 




4 


- 


4 


Tweed 




4 


1 


5 


Kemptville 




2 


- 


2 


Pembroke 




4 


2 


6 


Parry Sound 




7 


5 


12 


North Bay- 




8 


3 


11 


Sudbury 







3 


12 


Sault Ste. Marie 




9 


4 


13 


White River 




8 


1 


9 


Chapleau 




3 


- 


8 


Gogama 




g 


- 


8 


Swastika 




8 


5 


13 


Cochrane 




Q 
s 


3 


12 


Kapuskasing 




9 


1 


10 


Geraldton 




9 


- 


9 


Port Arthur 




9 


- 


9 


Fort Frances 




8 


1 


9 


Kenora 




9 


1 


10 


Sioux Lookout 




9 


- 


9 



- 31 - 



Comparison of Districts With Respect to Small Game 



Cottontail Rabbits 



District 



Degree 
Abundance of 
and Range Utiliza- 



Total 



(10) 



tion (10) Points 



Jack Rabbits (European Hare) 

Degree 
Abundance of 

and Range Utiliza- Total 
(10) tion (10) Points 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 
Kemptville 



10 


8 


IS 


10 


8 


18 


9 


8 


17 


10 


8 


18 


8 


8 


16 


8 


8 


16 


7 


7 


14 


6 


8 


14 


6 


6 


12 


6 


8 


14 


2 


1 


3 


1 


- 


1 



- 32 - 

Comparison of District With Respect to Small Game 

Snowshoe Hare 



Abundance 



District 


and Range (10) 


Lake Huron 


1 


Lake Simcoe 


2 


Lindsay- 


6 


Tweed 


6 


Kemptville 


4 


Pembroke 


6 


Parry Sound 


8 


North Bay 


9 


Sudbury 


10 


Sault Ste. Marie 


10 


White River 


9 


Chapleau 


9 


Gogama 


9 


Swastika 


9 


Cochrane 


10 


Kapuskasing 


10 


Geraldton 


10 


Port Arthur 


10 


Fort Frances 


9 


Kenora 


10 


Sioux Lookout 


10 



Degree of 
Utilization (5) 



1 
1 
1 



Total 
Points 

1 
2 
7 
7 
5 
6 

9 

9 
10 
10 

9 

9 

9 

9 
10 
10 
10 
10 

9 
10 
10 



- 33 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Small Game 

Fox Raccoon 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
infliite River 

hapleau 

ogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
(apuskasing 
)eraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 
tvenora 
Sioux Lookout 



Abundance 
and Range 

(?) 


Degree 
of 

Utiliza- 
tion (5) 


Total 
Points 


Abundance 
and Range 

(?) 


Degree 
of 

Utiliza- 
tion (5) 


Total 
Points 


5 


4 




9 


5 


4.5 


9.5 


5 


4 




9 


4.5 


4 


8.5 


5 


4 




9 


4 


4 


8 


4 


3 




7 


3.5 


.5 


4 


4 


3 




7 


3.5 


.5 


4 


5 


4 




li 


4 


1 


5 


2 


- 




2 


1.5 


.5 


2 


2 


- 




2 


3 


- 


3 


2 


- 




2 


2 


- 


2 


2 


- 




2 


2 


- 


2 


2 


- 




2 


2 


- 


2 


2 


- 




2 


*m 


- 


- 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 


■ 


2 


- 


- 


MB 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 


3 


- 




3 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 


2 


- 




2 


1 


- 


1 


2 


- 




2 


1 


- 


1 


2 


- 




2 


- 


- 


- 



- 34 - 



Comparison of Districts by Waterfowl and Ruffed Grouse 





Waterfowl 




Ruff 


ed Grouse 


District 


Abundance 
and Range 

20 


Degree 
of 

Utili- 
zation 

14 


Total 
Points 

34 


Abundance 
and Range 

3 


Degree 
of 

Utili- 
zation 

8 


Total 
Points 


Lake Erie 


11 


Lake Huron 


14 


16 


30 


5 


8 


13 


Lake Simcoe 


14 


16 


30 


4 


8 


12 


Lindsay- 


14 


16 


30 


5 


8 


13 


Tweed 


16 


16 


32\ 


6 


8 


14 


Kemptville 


12 


14 


V^V 


4 


6 


10 


Pembroke 


8 


8 


16 


5 


6 


11 


Parry Sound 


12 


8 


20 


8 


8 


16 


North Bay 


8 


4 


12 


8 


6 


14 


Sudbury 


10 


4 


14 


9 


3 


12 


Sault Ste. Marie 


10 


4 


14 


8 


3 


11 


White River 


6 


2 


8 


7 


2 


9 


Chapleau 


6 


2 


8 


7 


2 


9 


Gogama 


8 


2 


10 


7 


2 


9 


Swastika 


8 


2 


10 


8 


7 


15 


Cochrane 


18 


14 


32 


9 


4 


13 


Kapuskasing 


8 


2 


10 


9 


4 


13 


Geraldton 


8 


2 


10 


10 


2 


12 


Port Arthur 


10 


2 


10 


10 


3 


13 


Fort Frances 


14 


12 


26 


7 


4 


11 


Kenora 


14 


12 


26 


9 


3 


12 


Sioux Lookout 


10 


4 


14 


9 


2 


11 



Lake Erie Districts Mourning Doves = 5 points; 

Bobwhite Quail = 4 points. 

Sudbury - Manitoulins Prairie Chicken = 3 points, 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 
Swastika 
Fort Frances 



- 35 - 

Comparison of Districts By : 
Hungarian Partridge 




k) 



Abundance 
& Range 

4 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 



Degree of 
Utilization 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 
1 
1 







Total 
Points 



Northern Sharptailed Grouse 



District 



White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 

Swastika 

Cochrane 

Kapuskasing 

Geraldton 

Port Arthur 

Sioux Lookout 




Abundance 
& Range 



4 
3 
4 
4 
5 
5 
5 



4 
5 



Degree of 
Utilization 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

4 

2 

4 



Total 
Points 

5 

4 
5 
5 
9 
8 
9 
6 

9 



Prairie Sharptailed Grouse 



District 



Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Fort Frances 



Abundance 
& Range 

2 

5 

5 



Degree of 
Utilization 

1 

2 

3 



Total 
Points 

3 
7 
6 



- 36 - 

Comparison of Districts With Respect to Pheasants 

Abundance Degree of Special Total 

District and Range Utilization Problems Points 



Lake Erie 10 9 5 24 

Lake Huron 5 7 3 15 

Lake Simcoe 4 5 2 11 

Lindsay 3 1+ 1 B 

Tweed 1 3-4 



$J 



Kemptville 2 3-5 










- 37 - 

Comparison of Districts by Traplines and Trappers 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
ake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

ftemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
Worth Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
tfhite River 
Shapleau 
Sogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
tapuskasing 
jeraldton 
D ort Arthur 
? ort Frances 
venora 

>ioux Lookout 
^Patricia West 
"Patricia Central 
►Patricia East 



Number of Number of Points 
Registered Registered Awarded 
Traplines Trappers (Max. 30) 



64 



39 



3 



8 


18 


2 


126 


142 


11 


159 


159 


12 


60 


60 


5 


137 


141 


11 


151 


171 


13 


209 


188 


14 


233 


169 


13 


126 


87 


7 


123 


75 


6 


107 


105 


8 


149 


149 


11 


98 


117 


9 


199 


179 


14 


132 


170 


13 


165 


183 


14 


125 


125 


10 


337 


393 


30 


89 


102 


8 


245 


619 


25 


231 


722 


25 


124 


3 58 


15 



Number of Points 
Resident Awarded 
Trappers (Max. 30) 



706 


26 


694 


26 


422 


16 


507 


19 


854 


r\ 


619 


[23/ 


95 


4 


446 


17 


154 


6 


62 


2 



7 
18 
33 

59 
87 
13 



1 
1 
1 

2 

3 
1 



* Counted ,'ith Sioux Lookout District and adjusted for number of 

trappers. 
+ Counted with Cochrane District and adjusted for number of trappers. 



- 3d - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Beaver 
Quotas and Beaver Sealed 1956 - 57 



District 


Beaver 

Quota 


Points 

Awards 
(Max. 


d 
25) 


Beaver 
Sealed 

15 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 25) 


Total 
Points 


Lake Erie 


- 


Lake Huron 


- 




- 




49 


- 


- 


Lake Simcoe 


1,350 




3 




1,073 


1 


4 


Lindsay- 


7,362 




16 




6,139 


4 


20 


Tweed 


12,958 




20 




6,959 


4 


fa 


Kemptville 


- 




- 




606 


1 


* 


Pembroke 


3,034 




6 




3,436 


2 


8 


Parry Sound 


10,925 




20 




7,501 


5 


25 


North Bay 


6,240 




13 




4,315 


3 


16 


Sudbury 


13,065 




20 




7,224 


5 


25 


Sault Ste. Marie 


3,927 




13 




1,613 


1 


19 


White River 


5,309 




11 




1,730 


1 


12 


Chapleau 


1,493 




3 




990 


1 


4 


Gogama 


2,498 




5 




1,221 


1 


6 


Swastika 


3,323 




7 




1,351 


1 


8 


Cochrane 


4,322 




9 




2,355 


1 


10 


Kapuskasing 


10,353 




20 




6,336 


4 


24 


Geraldton 


10,347 




20 




3,735 


2 


22 


Port Arthur 


3,363 




17 




4,031 


3 


20 


Fort Frances 


11,344 




20 




6,393 


4 


24 


Kenora 


14,460 




20 




5,906 


4 


24 


Sioux Lookout 


5,232 




10 




1,187 


1 


11 


^Patricia West 


19,743 




20 




5,654 


4 


24 


^Patricia Central 


27,643 




25 




7,183 


5 


30 


■f-Patricia East 


13,306 

Sioux Look 
Cochrane D 




20 




4,508 

as addit: 
Iditional 


4 


24 


K Counted with 
+ Counted with 


out District 
istrict as ac 


Lonal workload, 
workload. 



- 39 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Martin 
and Fisher Quotas and Sealed 1956-57 







Martin 




Fisher 


District 


Quota 


Sealed 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 


Quota 


Sealed 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 


Lake Erie 


- 


Lake Huron 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Lake Simcoe 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Lindsay 


35 


9 


- 


63 


63 


3 


Tweed 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


c ; 


Kemptville 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Pembroke 


147 


113 


2 


343 


184 


7 


Parry Sound 


199 


103 


2 


406 


178 


7 


North Bay 


4 


6 


- 


112 


50 


2 


Sudbury 


- 


- 


- 


58 


83 


3 


Sault Ste. Marie 


64 


115 


2 


210 


65 


3 


White River 


615 


380 


4 


263 


73 


4 


Chapleau 


- 


265 


2 


- 


71 


2 


Gogama 


354 


368 


4 


294 


64 


4 


Swastika 


IS 


28 


1 


260 


53 


3 


Cochrane 


499 


526 


5 


426 


72 


5 


Kapuskasing 


1,297 


1,032 


10 


758 


150 


9 


Geraldton 


1,213 


522 


8 


443 


50 


4 


Port Arthur 


351 


174 


3 


819 


194 


10 


Fort Frances 


36 


39 


1 


307 


130 


5 


Kenora 


104 


7 


1 


587 


79 


6 


Sioux Lookout 


324 


196 


2 


326 


44 


3 


Patricia West 


75 


25 


1 


1,997 


125 


18 


Patricia Central 


326 


51 


2 


670 


58 


7 


Patricia East 


131 


131 


2 


108 


28 


2 



- 40 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch 
of Mink, Otter and Lynx, 1956-57 



District 



ake Erie 

ake Huron 

ake Simcoe 

indsay 

weed 

emptville 

embroke 

arry Sound 

orth Bay 

udbury 

ault Ste. Marie 

hite River 

hapleau 

Dgama 

wastika 

Dchrane 

apuskasing 

eraldton 

art Arthur 

Drt Frances 

snora 

ioux Lookout 

D atricia West 

Patricia Central 

D atricia East 



Number 

of Points 

Mink Awarded 

Sealed (Max. 15) 



410 

1,479 

1,027 

1,532 

1,640 

400 

359 

1,969 

1,186 

2,171 

823 

659 

352 

374 

520 

358 

884 

63 5 

422 

1,453 
1,570 

373 
2,559 

5,100 

1,041 



3 

11 
8 

11 

12 
3 
7 

15 
9 

15 
6 

5 
3 
3 
4 
3 
7 
5 
3 
11 
12 

3 
16 
32 

6 



Number 
of 

Otter 
Sealed 



11 
152 

143 
6 

131 
326 
150 

233 
132 
96 
78 
83 
62 

53 

166 

258 

105 

136 

97 

63 

501 

1,740 

593 



Points 

Awarded 
(Max. 5) 



3 
2 

2 
5 
3 
4 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
4 
2 
2 
2 
1 
8 
24 
9 



Number 
of 

Lynx 
Sealed 



10 

11 

4 

8 

6 

5 

74 

43 

189 

23 

14 

4 

17 

18 

133 

57 

25 



Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 5) 



1 
1 



2 

1 
5 
1 
1 

1 
1 

3 
2 

1 



Patricias were calculated upwards from the maxima, 



- 41 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch 
of Muskrat, Raccoon and Skunk 1956-57 



District 



ake Erie 
ake Huron 
ake Simcoe 
indsay 
deed 

smptville 
smbroke 
arry Sound 
Drth Bay 
adbury 

ault Ste. Marie 
aite River 
lapleau 
Dgama 
tfastika 
Dchrane 
apuskasing 
raldton 
Drt Arthur 
3rt Frances 
enora 

ioux Lookout 
atricia West 
atricia Central 
atricia East 



Mus 


>krat 


Raccoon 






Skunk 


Trapped 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 20) 


Trapped 


Points 

Award e 
(Max. 


d 
5) 


Trappe 


Points 
Awarded 
d (Max. 5) 


58,966 


20 


2,755 


3 




505 


5 


42,542 


17 


4,216 


5 




374 


4 


25,627 


11 


1,784 


2 




120 


1 


33,927 


14 


695 


1 




32 


- 


57,033 


20 


262 


1 




- 


- 


31,385 


13 


296 


1 




- 


- 


5,546 


2 


65 


- 




1 


- 


15,557 


6 


272 


1 




2 


- 


5,898 


2 


2 


- 




- 


- 


12,333 


5 


10 


- 




3 


- 


1,515 


1 


- 


- 




- 


- 


1,189 


1 


- 


- 




- 


- 


1,296 


1 


- 


- 




3 


- 


1,805 


1 


- 


- 




- 


- 


1,892 


1 


- 


- 




- 


- 


4,143 


2 


- 


- 




- 


- 


6,737 


3 


- 


- 




- 


- 



4,820 2 

1,930 1 

6,296 3 

7,700 3 

1,160 1 

23,152 9 

22,632 8 

10,439 4 



54 
5 



- 42 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch 
of Squirrel, Weasel and Fox, 1956-57 



Squirrel 



Weasel 



Fox 



District 



,ake Erie 

jake Huron 

,ake Simcoe 

;indsay 

weed 

iemptville 

embroke 

arry Sound 

orth Bay 

Sudbury 

lault Ste. Marie 

fhite River 

hapleau 

ogama 

wastika 

ochrane 

apuskasing 

eraldton 

ort Arthur 

ort Frances 

enora 

ioux Lookout 

atricia West 

'atricia Central 

atricia East 



Points 

Awarded 
Trapped (Max. 5) 

3 

128 

216 1 
258 1 
340 1 

23 

44 
1,236 3 



158 

259 

^5 

18 

354 

43 

1,162 

269 

2,526 

358 

657 

1,131 

53 

4,097 

5,996 

5 



1 

3 

1 

5 
1 
2 
3 



Points 

Awarded 
Trapped (Max, 5! 



207 1 

93 1 

114 1 

86 1 

98 1 

54 

200 1 

810 3 

648 2 

1,132 3 

489 2 

500 2 

304 1 

545 2 

687 2 

1,578 4 

1,895 5 

291 1 

1,046 3 

1,032 3 

934 3 

393 1 

2,300 

2,073 

464 1 



Points 
Awarded 
Trapped (Max. 5) 

112 2 

471 5 
112 2 

59 1 
97 1 
58 1 

60 1 
50 1 

8 
34 1 
18 
15 
14 

9 

5 

8 
24 1 
13 
11 
16 
11 

2 
17 
17 

61 1 



- 43 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Number 
Regulated Townships and Fur Farms 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
White River 
Chapleau 
Gogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 
Geraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 
Kenora 
Sioux Lookout 



Number of 
Regulated 
Townships 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 50) 


Number 
of 
Fur 
Farms 


Points 

Awarded 
(Max. 5) 


99 


50 


100 


4 


31 


35 


236 


5 


16 


25 


102 


4 


2 


5 


13 


1 


- 


- 


9 


1 


- 


- 


17 


1 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


- 


14 
3 
8 


1 


- 


- 


1 


- 


- 


3 


- 



20 
6 
9 



2 

1 
1 



- 44 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By 
Number of Wolves and Bears Bountied, 1957-58 



District 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Lake Simcoe 

Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 

Pembroke 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 

Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

White River 

Chapleau 

Gogama 

Swastika 

Cochrane 

Kapuskasing 

Geraldton 

Port Arthur 

Fort Frances 

Sioux Lookout 

Kenora 



Number of 

Wolves 

Bountied 


Points 

Award e 
(Max. 


d 
15) 


Number of 

Bears 

Bountied 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 5) 


28 


2 




- 


- 


30 


2 




15 


- 


36 


3 




- 


- 


65 


5 




26 


- 


35 


3 




94 


1 


21 


2 




2 


- 


103 


8 




186 


2 


96 


7 




64 


1 


70 


5 




27 





254 


15 




93 


1 


130 


10 




60 


1 


27 


2 




- 


- 


25 


2 




- 


- 


12 


1 




- 


- 


20 


1 




401 


5 


54 


4 




135 


2 


57 


4 




108 


1 


61 


5 




- 





97 


7 




137 


2 


122 


9 




94 


1 


91 


7 




- 





203 


15 




89 


1 



- 45 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Number of Crown Game Preserves 



District 


Crown Game Preserves 
16 


Points Awarded (Max. 25) 


Lake Erie 


25 


Lake Huron 


15 


25 


Lake Simcoe 


9 


15 


Lindsay 


7 


16 


Tweed 


4 


flk 


Kemptville 


6 


H 


Pembroke 


1 


25 (Includes Algonquin Pk.) 


Parry Sound 


3 


4 


North Bay 


2 


10 


Sudbury 


2 


10 


Sault Ste. Marie 


- 


2 


White River 


1 


3 


Chapleau 


1 


15 


Gogama 


1 


3 


Swastika 


- 


- 


Cochrane 


2 


20 


Kapuskasing 


1 


3 


Geraldton 


2 


12 


Port Arthur 


2 


20 (Includes Sibley Park) 


Fort Frances 


1 


20 (Includes Quetico Park) 



- 46 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Game Fish 



District 



jake Erie 
jake Huron 
^ake Simcoe 
indsay 
'weed 

emptville 
Pembroke 
5 arry Sound 
lorth Bay 
>udbury 

Jault Ste. Marie 
/hite River 
hapleau 
ogama 
Swastika 
ochrane 
.apuskasing 
eraldton 
•ort Arthur 
'ort Frances 
-enora 
aoux Lookout 



Lake Trout 



Speckled Trout 



Kamloops Trout 



Degree Degree Degree 

of of of 

Abundance Utili- Abundance Utili- Abundance Utili- 

and Range zation and Range zation and Range zation 



- 


- 


4 


10 


1 


10 


2 


8 


6 


9 


8 


9 


3 


7 


4 


9 


4 


9 


4 


8 


5 


8 


1 


6 


7 
7 


9 
9 


7 
1 
7 


8 

10 

7 


2 
1 
2 


: 

6 


6 


9 


5 


7 


6 


?fr 


9 


7 


6 


6 


- 


- 


9 


6 


10 


4 


4 


- 


7 


7 


9 


3 


10 


7 


4 


1 


5 


1 


2 


2 


3 


3 


2 


2 


- 


- 


3 


2 


3 


1 


- 


- 


3 


6 


4 


4 


- 


- 


4 


4 


10 


3 


- 


- 


1 


2 


5 


2 


- 


- 


7 


3 


8 


2 


2 


2 


10 


5 


6 


4 


3 


3 


5 


7 


- 


- 


1 


1 


10 


5 


1 


3 


- 


- 


10 


2 


9 


1 


- 


- 



- 47 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Game Fish 
Smallmouth Bass Largemouth Bass 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
White River 
Chapleau 
Gogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 
Geraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 
Kenora 
Sioux Lookout 



Maskinonge 



Degree Degree Degree 

of of of 

Abundance Utili- Abundance Utili- Abundance Utili- 

and Range zation and Range zation and Range zation 



4 
2 

3 

7 
9 
5 
3 
10 
5 
9 
3 



1 
4 
7 
2 



10 
8 
8 
7 
7 
8 
6 
6 
5 
5 
6 



4 
6 

4 



3 
2 
2 

10 
7 
8 
2 

4 
2 
2 



10 
8 
8 
7 
7 
7 

6 
4 



4 
3 
5 
10 
6 

5 
2 

7 
4 
6 

3 



1 
1 



4 
8 
5 



8 
6 
8 
10 
8 

4 
5 
5 
5 
4 



1 
1 



5 
4 
2 



- 48 - 
Comparison of Forest Districts By Game Fish 





Yellow 


Pickerel 


P 


ike 




District 


Abundance 
and Range 

2 


Degree of 
Utilization 

10 


Abundance 
and Range 

2 


Deg 
Uti 


,ree of 
lization 


Lake Erie 


10 


Lake Huron 


1 


9 


1 




9 


Lake Simcoe 


2 


8 


1 




8 


Lindsay 


3 


6 


2 




6 


Tweed 


4 


6 


2 




7 


Kemptville 


_2 


7 


2 




8 


Pembroke 


4 


4 


1 




4 


Parry Sound 


6 


6 


3 




6 


North Bay 


6 


5 


7 




5 


Sudbury 


7 


4 


g 




4 


Sault Ste. Marie 


7 


3 


4 




4 


White River 


5 


2 


7 




1 


Chapleau 


7 


1 


7 




2 


Gogama 


7 


1 


7 




1 


Swastika 


3 


2 


7 




4 


Cochrane 


8 


2 


9 




2 


Kapuskasing 


7 


1 


7 




1 


Geraldton 


7 


1 


9 




1 


Port Arthur 


9 


2 


9 




2 


Fort Frances 


9 


3 


8 




3 


Kenora 


10 


4 


10 




4 


Sioux Lookout 


10 


1 


10 




1 



- 49 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Game Fish 



District 


Pan 


fish 






Brown 


Trout 


Abundance 
and Range 

13 


Degree of 
Utilization 

8 


Abundance 

and Range 

9 


Degree of 
Utilization 


Lake Erie 


8 


Lake Huron 


7 




6 




10 


6 


Lake Simcoe 


3 




5 




5 


5 


Lindsay 


5 




5 




5 


5 


Tweed 


6 




6 




4 


4 


Kemptville 


6 




5 




- 


- 


Pembroke 


1 




1 




- 


- 


Parry Sound 


1 




1 




- 


- 


Fort Frances 


2 




1 




- 


- 


Kenora 


1 




1 




- 


- 



- 50 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By 



Number of 
Sanctuaries 
Inventory and Regulated Points 



District 


of Waters 
10 


Creel Census 
30 


Waters 
4 


Awarded (25) 


Lake Erie 


5 


Lake Huron 


20 


45 


4 


5 


Lake Simcoe 


10 


35 


7 


10 


Lindsay 


40 


35 


1 


5 


Tweed 


30 


40 


3 


5 


Kemptville 


30 


35 


10 


15 


Pembroke 


40 


25 


6 


10 


Parry Sound 


40 


35 


32 


25 


North Bay 


60 


25 


11 


15 


Sudbury 


30 


30 


1 


2 


Sault Ste. Marie 


70 


30 


- 


- 


White River 


70 


25 


- 


- 


Chapleau 


70 


15 


1 


2 


Gogama 


70 


10 


- 


- 


Swastika 


50 


20 


6 


10 


Cochrane 


90 


10 


1 


2 


Kapuskasing 


50 


5 


- 


- 


Geraldton 


100 


15 


- 


- 


Port Arthur 


100 


20 


- 


- 


Fort Frances 


90 


25 


3 


5 


Kenora 


100 


30 


- 


- 


Sioux Lookout 


100 


5 


2 


5 



- 51 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By 





Assessment of 


(50) 






District 


Hatchery Plant 
35 


ings 


Special 


Investigations 


Lake Erie 


2g 


Lake Huron 


45 






27 


Lake Simcoe 


40 






IS 


Lindsay 


50 






26 


Tweed 


45 






25 


Kemptville 


20 






15 


Pembroke 


45 






10 


Parry Sound 


45 






30 


North Bay 


40 






20 


Sudbury 


45 






15 


Sault Ste. Marie 


40 






15 


White River 


35 






2 


Chapleau 


25 






5 


Gogama 


25 






5 


Swastika 


40 






15 


Cochrane 


20 






10 


Kapuskasing 


20 






5 


Geraldton 


30 






10 


Port Arthur 


40 






15 


Fort Frances 


20 






15 


Kenora 


20 






15 


Sioux Lookout 


10 






10 



- 52 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Hatcheries 

District Hatchery 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 

Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Swastika 

Port Arthur 

Kenora 



Normandale 
Kingsville 

Chatsworth 
Mount Pleasant 
Wiarton 

Midhurst 

Deer Lake 
Codrington 

White Lake 

Westport 

Pembroke 

Skeleton Lake 

North Bay 

Sandfield 
Little Current 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Hill's Lake 

Dorion 
Port Arthur 

Kenora 



Points Awarded 
(10 each) 


Total 
Points 


5.6 
2.1 




7.7 


7.6 
5.6 
2.0 




15.2 


1.3 




1.3 


4.0 
3.0 




7.0 


2.6 




2.6 


3.0 




3.0 


4.2 




4.2 


3.5 




3.5 


4* 4 




4.4 


4.0 
2.7 




6.7 


8 c 4 




8.4 


8.4 




8.4 


8.5 
3.1 




11.6 


3.8 




3.8 



- 53 - 

Comparison of Forests Districts By Fish flantings 



District 


Planted in 
District 


Planted in 
Other Districts 

322,000 fgs. 
43,000 y. 


Points 
Awarded 


Lake Huron 


50,000 fgs. 


20 


Lake Simcoe 


172,000 fgs. 
10,000 y. 


- 


14 


Lindsay 


10,000 y. 
50,000 fgs. 


10,000 


8 


Tweed 


80,000 y. 
30,000 fgs. 


- 


16 


Kemptville 


9,600 y. 


- 


8 


Pembroke 


85,000 fgs. 
10,000 y„ 


- 


8 


Parry Sound 


20,000 y. 


- 


8 


North Bay 


20,000 y. 


10,000 


10 


Sudbury 


- 


Splake 


8 


Sault Ste. Marie 


250,000 y. 


- 


18 


Swastika 


45,000 fgs. 


- 


6 


Cochrane 


Part of Swastika 






Kapuskasing 


Part of Swastika 






Geraldton 


12,000 y. 


- 


8 


Port Arthur 


275,000 y. 


15,000 y. 


20 


Fort Frances 


5,000 y. 


- 


4 


Kenora 


23,000 fgs. 


- 


2 


Sioux Lookout 


6,000 y. 
2 5,000 fgs. 


- 


6 



- 






- 54 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Fish Plantings 







Sd 


Bckled Trout 




District 


Planted in 
District 

50,000 y. 
3,700 y.2 


Planted in 
Other Districts 

14,000 y. 


Points 
Awarded 


Lake Erie 


10 


Lake Huron 


232,500 


y. 


24,000 y. 


18 


Lake Simcoe 


93,000 


y. 


- 


10 


Lindsay- 


160,000 


y« 


- 


14 


Tweed 


249,000 


y. 


- 


18 


Kemptville 


4,500 


y. 


- 


2 


Pembroke 


201,000 


y. 


30,000 y. 


18 


Parry Sound 


165,000 


y. 


55,000 y. 


18 


North Bay 


75,000 




20,000 


14 


Sudbury 


222,000 


y. 


- 


18 


Sault Ste. Marie 


3 50,000 


y. 


50,000 y. 


20 


White River 


50,000 


y- 


- 


6 


Chapleau 






5,000 y. 


2 


Gogama 


15,000 


y. 


- 


4 


Swastika 


242,000 
30,000 

42,700 


y- 

fgs. 
y.2 


60,000 


20 


Geraldton 


75,000 


fgs. 


- 


4 


Port Arthur 


210,000 
100,000 


fgs. 

y- 


115,000 fgs. 


16 


Fort Frances 


15,000 


fgs. 


- 


2 


Kenora 


S3, 000 


fgs. 


- 


4 


Sioux Lookout 


25,000 


fgs. 


- 


2 



- 55 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Fish Plantings 



Kamloops Trout 



District 
Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 
Lake Siracoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Gogama 



District 
Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Tweed 



Planted In 
District 


Planted in 
Other Districts 


Points 
Awarded 


10,000 
1,000 


y. 

Ad. 


15,000 y. 


14 


10,000 


y. 


- 


9 


5,000 


y. 


- 


6 


10,000 


y- 


- 


9 


9,200 


y. 


- 


9 


5,000 


Jo 


5,000 y„ 


9 


26,000 


y« 


- 


12 


24,000 


y. 


- 


12 


£,000 




36,000 


15 


2,000 


y- 


- 


4 


Brown Trout 


Planted in 
District 


Planted in 
Other District 


Points 

Awarded 


6,500 


y. 


- 


1 


97,500 


y. 


55,000 y. 


15 


49,500 


y. 


- 


5 



56 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Fish Plantings 



Yellow Pickerel 



District 
Lake Erie 
Lindsay 
Parry Sound 
Sudbury 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 

Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 
North Bay 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 

Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay 

Tweed 

Kemptville 
Parry Sound 



Planted 
In Distrii 


:t 


Planted in 
Other Districts 


Points 
Awarded 


'•M 




2,000,000 


3 


2,000,000 




- 


3 


3,000,000 




- 


4 


- 




1,000,000 E. 


2 


Largemouth Bass 


1,000 


fgs 


- 


3 


80,000 
5,000 


F 
fgs. 


Some 


8 


30,000 


F. 


- 


3 


40,000 
5,000 


F. 
fgs. 


- 


7 


5,000 


fgSc 


- 


5 


15,000 


fgs. 


30,000 


10 


5,000 


fgs. 


- 


5 


Smallmouth Bass 


5,000 


fgSo 


— 


5 


80,000 
5,000 


1 o 

fgs. 


some 


8 


40,000 


F. 


- 


3 


5,000 
40,000 


fgs. 

F. 


- 


7 


5,000 


fgs. 


- 


5 


15,000 


fgs. 


- 


10 


20,000 


fgs. 


- 


10 



- 57 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Fish Plantings 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 

Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 



Maskinonge 



Planted in 
District 


Planted in 
Other Districts 


Points 
Awarded 


500 


fgs. 




- 


3 


100,000 


F 




- 


3 


3,000 
150,000 


fgs. 
F. 




- 


6 


35,000 
2,400,000 


fgs. 
F. 


1 


,000,000 
IS, 000 


10 


5,000 
400,000 


fgs. 

F. 




- 


6 


140,000 


F. 




- 


3 


1,000 
50,000 


fgs. 
F. 




- 


2 


100,000 
1,000 


F. 
fgs. 




- 


5 


50,000 
1,000 


F. 
fgs. 




- 


5 



Whitefish 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Tweed 

Sudbury 

Fort Frances 

Kenora 

Sioux Lookout 



2,300,000 200,000 

100,000 E. 

1,000,000 

52,000,000 E. 1,000,000 E. 

Part of 23,000,000 - regional 

Part of 23,000,000 - regional 

Part of 23,000,000 - regional 



2 
1 
1 
5 
2 
2 
2 



- 56 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Fish Plantings 







Splake 




District 


Planted in 
District 

9,500 y. 


Planted in 
Other Districts 

Splake 


Points 
Awarded 


Lindsay 


4 


North Bay 


2 ? 700 


Splake 


2 


Sudbury 


20,000 


Splake 


5 


Sault Ste. Marie 


142,000 fgs. 
205,000 y. 


Splake 


20 


Geraldton 


840 y. 


Ouananiche 


2 



- 59 - 

C omparison of Forest Districts By Commercial Fishing Licences and Gear 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
rfhite River 
]hapleau 
jogama 
ochrane 
(apuskasing 
}eraldton 
D ort Arthur 
? ort Frances 
(enora 
3ioux Lookout 



Number of 

Gill-net 

Licences 


Points 
Awarde 
(Max. 


d 
10) 


Number of 
Yards of 
Gill-net 
Licences 
(Thousands) 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 


221 


10 




2,376 + 


10 


77 


4 




943 


5 


39 


2 




315 


2 


20 


1 




129 


1 


153 


8 




735 


4 


1 


- 




2 


- 


25 


1 




70S 


4 


3 


- 




5 


- 


23 


1 




146 


1 


60 


3 




513 


3 


10 


1 




152 


1 


1 


- 




2 


- 


2 


- 




4 


- 


6 


- 




10 


- 


1 


- 




1 


- 


61 


3 




1 361 


2 


70 


4 




541 


3 


30 


2 




116 


1 


71 


4 




244 


1 


147 


7 




360 


2 



- 60 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Commercial Fishing; Licences and Gear 



District 



Lake Erie 

Lake Huron 

Parry Sound 

North Bay 

Sudbury 

Sault Ste» Marie 

Sochrane 

}eraldton 

J ort Arthur 

Port Frances 

(enora 

Sioux Lookout 



Number of 

Pounds 

and/or 

Trap-net 

Licences 



Points 

Awarded 
(Max. 10) 



Number 
of Pots 
Licenced 



Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 



92 


10 


877 


10 


6 


1 


11 


1 


6 


1 


26 


1 


3 


1 


13 


1 


7 


1 


22 


1 


13 


1 


25 


1 


2 


- 


6 


1 


2 


- 


3 


1 


12 


1 


15 


1 


9 


1 


9 


1 


1 


- 


8 


1 


2 


- 


4 


1 



- 61 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Commercial Fishing Licences and Gear 

Number of Points Number Points Other Points 

Hoop-net Awarded of Pots Awarded Gear Awarded 

District Licences (Max. 10) Licenced (Max. 10) Licences (Max. 10) 



Lake Erie 25 2 117 3 129 10 

Lake Huron - 17 1 

Lake Simcoe 6 1 36 2 3 1 

Lindsay 6 1 54 2 

Tweed 168 10 1,385 10 86 8 

Kemptville 36 3 401 4 55 6 

Parry Sound - - 1 - 

jNorth Bay - - 4 1 

logama - - 1 - 

yochrane - - 2 - 

Kapuskasing - - 1 - 

Fort Frances 5 1 19 1 - 

Xenora 30 2 140 3 6 1 

Sioux Lookout - - 8 1 



. 



- 62 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch (Pounds) of Commercial Fish, 1957 



District 


Whitefish 
582,064 


Points 
Awarded 

5 


Lake Trout 
59 


Points 
Awarded 


Lake Erie 


- 


Lake Huron 


72,700 


1 


17,000 


2 


Lake Simcoe 


52,400 


1 


1,235 


1 


Lindsay 


5,700 


- 


12 


- 


Tweed 


292,400 


4 


897 


- 


Parry Sound 


96,200 


1 


1,263 


1 


Sudbury 


185,000 


2 


394 


- 


Sault Ste. Marie 


141,200 


2 


67,000 


4 


White River 


46,666 


1 


41,470 


3 


Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 


837 


- 


- 


- 


Geraldton 


266,800 


3 


166,700 


5 


Port Arthur 


139,400 


2 


77,300 


4 


Fort Frances 


92,250 


1 


85,300 


4 


Kenora 


487,500 


5 


14,600 


2 


Sioux Lookout 


483,000 


5 


95,300 


4 



63 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch (Pounds) of Commercial Fish, 1957 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Parry Sound 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. 
Marie 

Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 



Geraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 



Kenora 


Sioux Lookout 


District 


Lake Erie 


Lake Huron 


Lake Simcoe 


Lindsay 


Tweed 


Sault Ste. Marie 


(Kenora 



Yellow 
Pickerel 

8,623,900 

6,000 

3,830 

859 

115,500 

824 

28,900 

18,400 

16,800 

14,031 

289,100 
106,800 
132,300 
517,700 
413,400 

Smelt 



Points Blue 
Awarded Pickerel 



5 



6,389,348 
29 



8,400 



Points 
Awarded 


Perch 


Points 
Awarded 


5 


11,947,800 


5 


) 


42,000 


1 


- 


56 


- 


- 


12,241 


- 


) 


35,900 


1 


- 


7,000 


— 



302 



2 
2 

1 
2 
2 



3,500 
11,600 



Points Awarded White Bass Points Awarded 



4,487,850 


5 


3,578,318 


12,186 


- 


1,556 


2,500 


- 


258 


88,523 


1 


307 


60,766 


1 


10,185 


1,000 


- 


- 


22 


- 


876 



- 64 - 

Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch (Pounds) of Commercial Fish, 1957 



District 


Chub or Tullibees 
40,037 


Point 

Award 

2 


s 
ed 


Herring 
122,927 


Points 
Awarded 


Lake Erie 


1 


Lake Huron 


373,142 




5 






5,369 


- 


Lake Siracoe 


- 




- 






6,072 


- 


Lindsay- 


2,125 




- 






7,447 


- 


Tweed 


- 




- 






76,471 


1 


Parry Sound 


- 




- 






515 


- 


Sudbury 


44,000 




2 






51,000 


1 


Port Arthur 


- 




- 




1,650,000 


5 


Fort Frances 


122,500 




3 






- 


- 


Kenora 


95,103 




3 






- 


- 


Sioux Lookout 


33,131 


Aw£ 
4 


2 






- 


- 


District 


Bullhead Points 
231,259 


irded 


Carp 
455,553 


Point 


s Awarded 


Lake Erie 


5 


Lake Huron 


- 


- 




173 


,500 




3 


Lake Simcoe 


339 


- 




41 


,702 




1 


Lindsay 


17,699 


1 




17 


,436 




1 


Tweed 


376,372 


5 




246,339 




3 


Kemptville 


73,439 


2 






707 




- 


Parry Sound 


- 


- 






177 




- 


Sudbury 


- 


- 




10 


,200 




1 


Fort Frances 


350 


- 










- 


Kenora 


30,966 


1 




2. 


,474 




- 


[Sioux Lookout 


- 


- 






113 




- 



- 65 - 
Comparison of Forest Districts By Catch (Pounds) of Commercial Fish, 1957 



Points Awarded Suckers Points Awarded 

1 350,312 4 

23,600 1 

15,223 1 
7,624 

1 ^3,623 2 

14,541 1 
2,167 

1 33,900 1 

24,000 1 

4,173 

1 4,694 

992 

3 203,674 3 

5 434,437 5 

3 161,517 3 



District 


Pike 


Lake Erie 


13,132 


Lake Huron 


25 


Lake Simcoe 


31 


Lindsay- 


2,531 


Tweed 


3 5,000 


Kemptville 


- 


Parry Sound 


5,391 


Sudbury 


22,467 


Sault Ste. Marie 


734 


Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 


7,907 


Geraldton 


39,353 


Port Arthur 


3,974 


Fort Frances 


124,533 


Kenora 


370,704 


Sioux Lookout 


104,103 



- 66 - 



Comparison of Forest Districts By Bait Fish Licences 



District 



Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 
Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay- 
Tweed 

Kemptville 
Pembroke 
Parry Sound 
North Bay 
Sudbury 

Sault Ste. Marie 
White River 
Gogama 
Swastika 
Cochrane 
Kapuskasing 
Geraldton 
Port Arthur 
Fort Frances 
Kenora 
Sioux Lookout 



Number of 
Licences 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 


Number of 
Bait Fish 
Dealers 
Licences 


Points 
Awarded 
(Max. 10) 


9 


1 


27 


8 


36 


3 


3 


1 


165 


10 


43 


10 


142 


8 


36 


9 


153 


9 


17 


5 


169 


10 


11 


3 


60 


4 


1 


1 


120 


7 


21 


7 


126 


7 


13 


4 


93 


6 


20 


7 


52 


4 


3 


1 


2 


1 


- 


- 


9 


1 


- 


- 


30 


2 


- 


- 


15 


1 


- 


- 


4 


1 


- 


- 


11 


1 


- 


- 


26 


2 


3 


1 


66 


5 


19 


6 


141 


8 


25 


8 


115 


7 


19 


6 



- 67 - 
Comparison of Forest Districts By Bait Fish Pond Development 

District Points Award fid 

Lake Erie 5 

Lake Huron 7 

Lake Simcoe 10 

Lindsay 9 

Tweed 10 

Kemptville 9 

Pembroke 4 

Parry Sound $ 
North Bay 3 

Sudbury 5 

Sault Ste. Marie 4 

Swastika 3 
Cochrane 1 

Geraldton 1 
Port Arthur 3 

Fort Frances 4 

Kenora 4 

Sioux Lookout 2 



- 6d - 



Work Load Analysis 









Conservation 






Area 




Officer 


Administrative 




( Square 




Establish- 


Functions 


District 


Miles) 
135,300 


Population 
15,000 


ments 


(Points) 


A. Sioux Lookout 


16 


73 5 


Lake Erie 


7,300 


1,100,000 


18 


657 


Lake Huron 


8,900 


1,000,000 


18 


657 


B. Lake Simcoe 


5,300 


1,900,000 


17 


556 


Lindsay 


5,500 


225,000 


15 


402 


Tweed 


7,700 


265,000 


15 


332 


Cochrane 


68,182 


66,000 


13 


496 


Co Parry Sound 


6,500 


56,000 


13 


279 


Kemptville 


5,700 


539,000 


13 


390 


Sudbury 


12,100 


150,000 


13 


279 


Kenora 


12,400 


33,000 


13 


233 


Sault Ste. Marie 


9,400 


92,000 


13 


256 


Port Arthur 


13,900 


120,000 


13 


236 


North Bay 


5,800 


67,000 


12 


228 


Fort Frances 


7,200 


25,000 


10 


218 


Geraldton 


29,900 


10,000 


10 


244 


Pembroke 


5,300 


40,000 


9 


177 


Swastika 


5,400 


50,000 


7 


142 


Kapuskasing 


19,300 


20,000 


7 


177 


D. White River 


6,700 


5,000 


7 


125 


Chapleau 


6,700 


6,000 


7 


130 


Gogama 


6,400 


3,000 


7 


107 



Administrative Functions 



Wildlife Functions 



Area. 

Population. 

Indians. 

jRoad Developments. 

Number of Staff. 

aw Enforcement. 

ublic Relations. 
'Number of Guides. 

umber of Licence Issuers. 
Special Considerations. 



Big Game. 

Small Game. 

Waterfowl. 

Upland Game Birds. 

Pheasant Rearing. 

Registered Trappers. 

Resident Trappers. 

Fur Quotas and Sealed. 

Regulated Townships. 

Fur Farms. 

Predator Control (Wolves & Bears) 

Crown Game Preserves. 



- 69 - 



( continued) 



Work Load Analysis 



District 



A. Sioux Lookout 
Lake Erie 
Lake Huron 

Bo Lake Simcoe 
Lindsay 
Tweed 
Cochrane 

C . Parry Sound 
Kemptville 
Sudbury 
Kenora 

Sault Ste. Marie 
Port Arthur 
North Bay 
Fort Frances 
Geraldton 
Pembroke 
Swastika 
Kapuskasing 

D. White River 
Chapleau 
Gogama 



Wildlife Functions 



(Points) 

415 
318 
250 

220 
264 
251 
269 

204 
13 5 
197 
198 
157 
169 
142 
188 
165 
144 
113 
172 

103 
90 
90 



Fisheries Functions 



Fisheries Functions 



Game Commercial Total 
Fish Fish 
(Points) (Points) (Points) 



174 


45 


1,369 


250 


116 


1,341 


332 


36 


1,275 


243 


41 


1,060 


322 


36 


1,024 


320 


88 


991 


185 


8 


958 


326 


31 


840 


241 


39 


805 


287 


30 


793 


256 


55 


742 


301 


24 


738 


295 


28 


728 


290 


22 


682 


236 


36 


678 


195 


21 


62 5 


254 


9 


584 


221 


5 


481 


116 


6 


471 


145 


7 


380 


146 





366 


147 


1 


345 



Game Fish 



Commercial Fish 



Occurrence and Utilization, 

Inventory of 'Waters. 

fcreel Census. 

Sanctuaries & Regulated Waters. 

Assessment of Hatchery Fish Plantings 

Special Investigations. 

Hatcheries Operation. 

Fish Distribution. 



Gill Net Licences and Yardage 

Pound and Trap Nets. 

Hoop Nets and Other Gear. 

Fish Production. 

Bait Fish Licences. 

Bait Fish Pond Development.